Stallman: Valve's Linux games "unethical" but might boost OS usage

Never afraid to speak his mind, GNU founder and PC-rights campaigner Richard Stallman has called Valve's decision to sell DRM-laden games on Linux "unethical." Steam recently announced that it would port its client and popular titles to Ubuntu 12.04 LTS,……

All this talk about "non-free" is just crazy
Which developer would release a top of the line game (meaning a game that took 3 > 5 years to make with over a hundred developers) for free?
And with the source at that?

With a mindset like that it's not very strange that Linux on the desktop is still to this day a minority even compared to Apple...

If just all these open source developers would get together instead of having 2000 ways of doing the same thing we might actually one day see some progress for Linux on the desktop, but I'm not holding my breath!

If just all these open source developers would get together instead of having 2000 ways of doing the same thing we might actually one day see some progress for Linux on the desktop, but I'm not holding my breath!

All this talk about "non-free" is just crazy
Which developer would release a top of the line game (meaning a game that took 3 > 5 years to make with over a hundred developers) for free?

Click to expand...

Maybe he means, DRM-free.

Either way, Steam does more good than bad, so it's a necessary evil until someone decides to make a Steam-like game manager without DRM, which is about as likely to happen as Activision going bankrupt.

Saying that selling a closed source game denies the freedom of the user is pushing it. I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with the idea of playing such a game in Linux, you just don't buy it. It's not like the games will be forced upon people. Like any kind of business transaction, you only take part in it if you want to be there.

I can think of 3 ways that a company can make money with open source
1: advertising: you can include advertising in the game and make it part of the game play for video games, for other applications it can be a banner or other form.
2: donations:
3: kick starter: which is my personal favorite ask for the money before you even make it why not there are many people who are gaining there standing in the programming world by doing this but not taking advantage of the open source opportunity.with this opportunity you can relax and let your users find and fix problems.

3: kick starter: which is my personal favorite ask for the money before you even make it, there are many people who are gaining there standing in the programming world by doing this but not taking advantage of the open source opportunity.with this opportunity you can relax and let your users find and fix problems.

If just all these open source developers would get together instead of having 2000 ways of doing the same thing we might actually one day see some progress for Linux on the desktop, but I'm not holding my breath!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I really never got that. There are so many brilliant programmers out there, and so many cool distros of Linux, you'd figure they could hold some kind of summit and decide on making a super accessible version of Linux.

I can think of 3 ways that a company can make money with open source1: advertising: you can include advertising in the game and make it part of the game play for video games, for other applications it can be a banner or other form.2: donations:3: kick starter: which is my personal favorite ask for the money before you even make it why not there are many people who are gaining there standing in the programming world by doing this but not taking advantage of the open source opportunity.with this opportunity you can relax and let your users find and fix problems.

you are either very stupid or have no notion of the costs to create modern big budget video games, I'll bet it's both.

If he wants all software to be free, how are developers supposed to make money?

Click to expand...

I've always wondered about that myself.

Now, I'm all for free software but let's think realistically here. Fuel for your car costs money, food costs money, a house costs money, living costs money. See where I'm going with this? How is a programmer that makes his software free and gives the source freely away supposed to make a living? I don't understand how.

Many of these games take years to develop and along with that thousands upon thousands of man hours to write the code, debug the code, draw the artwork, refine the artwork, market the game, etc. All of which costs money, a lot of money. I see no serious game studio putting out a massive game for free, it's just not going to happen. A little game, sure, but not some massive game like Battlefield, Diablo 3, or Starcraft 2.

Truly free software is an honorable idea and goal to obtain but realistically speaking, it's never going to happen in a society in which people need to be paid real world money to be able to survive in it. Now, if we all lived in a nice and perfect society in which everyone worked for the betterment of society (like Star Trek) truly free software will work. But not now.

It's either freedom or the death of GNU/Linux. Let's face it, most desktop users are gamers-some casual and some hardcore, so, providing native support for many popular titles on Linux is a must for its survival.

Because, it's not that unethical. You can't just give everybody your source code-there's a lot of competition in this industry and if everyone just starts doing that then the number of developers willing to work on video games might just diminish by a lot.

All this talk about "non-free" is just crazy
Which developer would release a top of the line game (meaning a game that took 3 > 5 years to make with over a hundred developers) for free?
And with the source at that?

With a mindset like that it's not very strange that Linux on the desktop is still to this day a minority even compared to Apple...

Click to expand...

Yes exactly. It's not the first time Stallman has added little value to the debate. Companies can't do what they do without big budgets and the revenue that comes from their development. They aren't just going to give it away because some open source zealot thinks that is the way the world should work.

If Stallman can get the Valve dev team to work for free (let alone the EA umbrella etc etc), then good luck to him but I doubt we'll ever see it happen. People who care about the Linux making a real difference are just going to have to ignore his rants and get on with doing something productive.

Yeah it is pretty crazy for propriety games to have their full source code available. It's a tremendous liability. Hacking, cheating, unlicensed branches, and illegal distribution are just a few things large game companies want to avoid to protect profits. I can understand Valve for doing this since they've probably already reach their goal gamer-penetration and want to expand to new platforms without a real liability that would otherwise effect them any earlier beyond the release of these ports.

I just want to say one thing... LINUX LINUX LINUX LINUX... it's not GNU/Linux. Linus made it not Stallman otherwise it'd be called GNU/Richard_Stallman_OS. I'm getting pretty sick of him having to shove "GNU" in front of Linux every time he says it. All he did was create the GNU. >.>

to all you blinding asnwering without learning, find out more about free software. Quick google&wikipedia will be enough. Stallman is not saying software should be free as in without cost, but free as in respecting people's freedoms. stupid douches. There's lots of commercial games that are free.

Sooo valve decides to expand its services to the linux community even though its just a tiny fraction of the os market, and because of this linux users start bashing them for not giving them the games and their source code for free too? Sounds fair.